[OPE-L:2600] Re: Re: Critique

From: Andrew_Kliman (Andrew_Kliman@email.msn.com)
Date: Sat Mar 25 2000 - 10:35:54 EST

[ show plain text ]

In OPE-L 2576, Jerry attributed to me the view that capital is a thing:
"Didn't Andrew make the point that for Marx capital *is* a thing? Thus,
it not only *appears* as a thing but *is* a thing."

In OPE-L 2578, he attempted to support this claim by means of two quotes:

"Rather the commodity itself is a fetish in the strict and original sense
of the term, a thing that has un-thingly power."

"... the commodity-fetish has more developed subsidiary forms,
money-fetish, capital-fetish, etc. ...."

Neither of these quotes say that capital is a thing. But Jerry appears
to "reason" as follows:

A commodity is a thing.
The capital-fetish is a more-developed form of the commodity-fetish.
Therefore, capital is a thing.

This is of course nonsense.

If, moreover, this "deduction" can be used to accuse me of holding that
capital is a thing, it can equally be used to accuse Marx of the same
thing, since the 1st and 2nd premises are his:

"The commodity is, first of all, an external object, a thing which
through its qualities satisfies human needs of whatever kind" (_Capital_
I, Vintage, p. 125).

"If we then make the mistake of treating it [the value-form of the
product of labour] as the eternal natural form of social production, we
necessarily overlook the specificity of the value-form, and consequently
of the commodity-form together with its further developments, the money
form, the capital form, etc." (ibid., p. 174, note 34).

Andrew Kliman

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 21 2000 - 09:47:57 EDT